Does It Matter How Your Boss Delivers Bad News to Employees?
Originally submitted by: jadelay
Some people I have talked to (in a small and informal survey) think the means your boss uses to lay you off or let you go from a job doesn't matter. So, for example, if you know your boss hates confrontation and has a history of glossing over or shrouding bad news, then if you are let go through an email or without face-to-face communication, that it is for the best. The thinking here goes that it doesn't matter what the means are or how it was delivered, the news the next morning is still going to be bad news. Why should you be any more grateful to your boss for delivering bad news in a particular way? Accordingly, these people do not understand why others get so upset when they are informed about their layoffs from what they regard as impersonal communications technologies, including learning about it from the news media. I wonder about this, So, I guess I have a few questions: Is it responsible for a boss to inform employees about bad news involving them using electronic communications technologies? Does it really matter what the means are used to deliver bad news? If so, what are the circumstances in a business situation that require thinking seriously about the means you use to tell bad news to people who work with and for you?
All Articles
Re:Does It Matter How Your Boss Delivers Bad News to Employees?
Originally submitted by: barcode 2x
Of course a face-to-face meeting is the way to go. But I would argue that the initial news can be delivered via a "teaser" email, and still no one's feelings are hurt. Email has a sense of etiquette to it, unlike text messaging, which is still a new technology to many people. An email is a memo; you give your employee some vague warning before you drop the bomb. Something like "I had a meeting with corporate last night. I want to fill you in on what we talked about, come on into my office any time between 1 & 3." Then when the meeting happens, the employee has at least some set of expectations, and is prepared to hear bad news. If they are called in unexpectedly, sat in a chair and leveled with bad news, they are likely to react strongly. The first reaction is usually very emotional, angry, accusatory, etc., and for the boss's protection, a small warning via email is acceptable, and even advisable. However, to flat-out send an employee news that they are laid off via email, that's just plain mean. The real news has to be delivered in person. And by the same token, the employee owes it to the employer to deliver their news in person as well. To quit via email (and especially via text message) shows no integrity, and is disrespectful. A teaser message is good in this case, just like before: "I need to speak with you some time today, is there a good time?" Then when you go in, the boss is expecting something. It softens the blow of bad news and helps the meeting to go smoothly. The written word helps transition into the bad news. But still, in this age of technology, we need our face-to-face time. The 2.0 age has gotten us in the habit of communicating exclusively online. The next phase, the 3.0 age, will hopefully allow for more human contact as well. A year from now, we may be discussing whether it is ethical to video-instant-message your bad news directly to someone's portable handheld device, or to send it by audio podcast, or video-mail. And my answer will be the same: use the technology when it is appropriate, and when it will help you achieve your desired goal or effect. And when you meet face to face, be consistent. You must then be as good a person in person as you are online. Are you and your online persona the same person? In the 3.0 world, you may be forced to be.